Transitioning to timeless to become a law firm of the future now.The Challenges & the Opportunities

Attorneys today have some enormous opportunities not open to attorneys 20,10 or even 5 years ago. Equally those in private practice also face a variety of challenges that we have not seen before some of which include:

• intensified competition and cannabalisation (and not just from other law


• the increasing rapidity of change.

• the commoditisation of many attorneys’ traditional sources of income,

• the rise of online and virtual legal providers,

• the use of technology to reduce the time it takes to perform many tasks and

to increase an attorney’s efficiency and effectiveness of service and product


• the reduction in margins and profit levels for many firms,

• succession issues,

• the difficulties of securing and retaining the right people

• clients seeking to pay less for more

to list just a few.

For many there will be no return to ‘the good old days’; the ‘new normal’ is here to stay and the challenges will only increase.

To the credit of the legal profession, given that most firms can no longer increase their profitability simply by upping their charge-out rates annually, firms have taken some steps to find solutions to these challenges. In addition to placing a greater emphasis on their service offerings, adopting technology, and even diversifying their practices, most firms have focused on improvements to the financial aspects of their practice, usually utilizing the traditional profit levers we were all brought up on, such as:

improving time recording and WIP management;

• better rate realisation;

• reducing lock up;

• slashing expenses where they can;

• offering fixed fees;

• putting pressure on everyone in the firm to ‘perform’,and

• generally “tweaking” their business model.

This is all well and good, but I think most of these solutions are short term in focus and are, at best, only dealing with some of the symptoms rather than addressing the root cause of what ails our once great profession.


Move away from the “Oldlaw” business model

I firmly believe as professionals we need to do more than simply tweak our existing business model. I believe that if we, as a profession, are going to continue to be sustainably successful and relevant to businesses, our communities and to society generally, we have to accept and embrace a total mindset and business model change.

The traditional law firm business model, at least since the latter half of the 20th century largely operates by leveraging people x time x hourly rate. I call it the “Oldlaw” business model. For most attorneys and firms this model has worked, and still works, but it is, I believe, a sub-optimal way to run a legal practice. It is increasingly unacceptable to many in the profession and their clients, and is ultimately destined to have the same fate as dinosaurs, BETA and the USSR. These practices are Firms of the Past.

This business model that has served the legal profession well for many decades is deteriorating as many of our organisational and management structures – modelled on the industrial age command and control paradigm – are no longer appropriate, nor acceptable, well into the 2nd decade of the 21st century.

There is a better model increasingly being used by thousands of lawyers and other professionals all over the world, which offers innovative, proven strategies for restoring vitality and dynamism to law firms.

A legal practice can be run more effectively when it becomes a knowledge firm rather than merely a product or service firm.

These practices are Firms of the Future.


Law Firms Of The Future

Creating a Firm of the Future is not for everyone, as it requires leaders of firms to think about why, how and what they do very differently than they have in the past.

The guiding principles for this model are largely set out in two books: one jointly authored by Ron Baker and Paul Dunn titled “The Firm of the Future: A Guide for Accountants, Lawyers, and Other Professional Services” (Wiley 2003), and more recently refined in Ron Baker’s latest book “Implementing Value Pricing – A Radical Business Model for Professional Firms” (Wiley 2011).

Since 1995, Ron Baker, founder of The VeraSage Institute (of which I am a senior fellow), economist, author, speaker, pricing expert, and a thought leader for professional firms, has been speaking to leaders of the professions around the world on why and how to become Firms of the Future, in particular on the need to stop billing our services by time and start pricing according to the value we provide to our clients. 

The foremost principles upon which the Firm of the Future model is based looks at the value a firm creates for their clients (output) rather than the time spent on a file (input). To do this, firms must rid themselves of pricing their services by time and recognise that all professionals are knowledge workers, not machines, and they should not be treated like ‘widgets’ on a production line. Firms of the Future recognise that value is created outside the firm, not inside it, and that clients do not buy time, they never have and never will, so they have stopped trying to sell something that no one buys.


Agree your prices up front with your clients

So, if your clients do not buy your time, what do they buy?

They buy access to your intellectual capital – the value of which cannot be measured by time.

I advocate that we should, as a profession, agree our fees up front with our clients before we undertake any work. This is how the vast majority of the rest of the business world price their services. This is how you personally purchase nearly everything. Why should we expect our clients to buy something they do not, and we do not, know the price of upfront?

Believe me, I have heard every reason imaginable why law firms are different to all other businesses, and why it is impossible to price our services upfront (most common of course is “we don’t know how long this will take”). I don’t accept any of the reasons proffered – they are simply excuses. You know, as well as I do, that you price some of your services upfront when a client or market forces insist. Every law firm in the world could price their services up front-they just choose not to. Too many law firms are now pricing all their services upfront for anyone to say it cannot be done.


Time recording is the real cancer in our profession

Unsurprisingly, I also strongly believe that no law firm should slavishly record time. Recording time, especially in six-minute units, serves no valid purpose whatsoever in any professional firm. Time-based billing is but a symptom of the time recording ‘illness’ that many in our profession have become addicted to, and it is time recording that is the real cancer in our profession.

I know I sound like a reformed smoker, but ever since I began advocating our profession move away from time-based billing it has been constantly asserted to me that you need to record your time both to properly manage your lawyers (i.e. to know what they do all day) and to know your ‘cost of production’. I used to believe that too.

With all due respect, even leaving aside the fact that no human being can possibly accurately record the time they spend on a client’s matter, both these assertions for retaining the mind-numbing and expensive time-recording systems in place in most firms are manifestly wrong and unjustified.

People in organisations all over the world are creative, well-managed and highly productive without management needing to see their timesheets.

If you really want to know what your lawyer did all day why not just ask them? If we truly believed we needed timesheets to properly manage our people and to see how effective and efficient they are at doing things, why don’t we have our finance and administration teams, our receptionists, our assistants, our managing partners and CEOs and other "non-fee-earners" fill out timesheets?

Why? Because they do not charge their services by time and to make them fill out timesheets would make them less effective and much less motivated.


As far as timesheets being necessary to record a firm’s cost of production, there is absolutely no economic or accounting justification whatsoever to support this. Time is not an actual cost in the same sense as rent, wages, printing etc. Every lawyer in every firm, indeed every living person, has more or less the same time available to them every day. Time is merely a constant a restraint. It is what someone does with their time that makes them valuable. Nearly all of the costs in a firm are fixed and can be predicted. Costs do not vary depending on the amount of time you or your employed lawyer spends on a client.

All you are simply doing is making a record of time and then arbitrarily allocating a dollar value to each six-minute unit.


Some of the deleterious effects of time based billing

Time-based billing is not only detrimental to clients and our relationships with them, but in my view has led to a whole range of negative consequences for our profession that are too numerous to mention, but include:

Demotivating highly-intelligent ‘knowledge workers’ by making them slavishly

account and record every six minutes of their working day.

Lawyers being treated merely as ‘fee earners’ and primarily assessed more

on their hours recorded than anything else.

Too many smart people leaving our profession, often citing the time-based

billing model as a primary cause of their dissatisfaction.

The fostering of a production mentality in firms (“slowest horse wins the race”)

with little or no incentive to improve turnaround time.

Stifling of creativity or any incentive within firms to innovate.

Somewhere between seven and 15 per cent of a firm’s turnover is spent

purely on administering a time-based billing model, which adds no value to


Cost and communication disputes with our clients.

Significant lock up being considered the norm and just another cost of the

business of running a law firm.


Why become a Firm Of The Future?

I cannot implore you to become a Firm of the Future because all your competitors have ditched timesheets and hourly-based billing and if you do not you are going to be left behind – that is far from the case. In the majority of law firms in the western world, especially at the mid to large firm level, the primary basis of pricing legal services, measuring and compensating partners and employees, is still based solely on time.

But that does not make it right.

Slowly but surely the legal world is changing. Ten years ago I and others were explaining to firms why they should move away from time-based billing; now we are assisting them in how to make that move.

You can choose to adopt the ostrich pose and ignore this trend or you can look at ways you can adopt fixed-fee or value-based pricing.

I know some of you will convince yourselves that your clients are happy with being billed by time, but I have the opportunity to meet with many clients of law firms and invariably the majority tell me the same thing – they would much prefer the certainty of agreeing their fees in advance to the uncertainty of hourly rates, ranges or estimates that invariably change.

As stated previously, pricing your services upfront, according to the value you are providing to your client, not on the time spent on a matter nor how many emails you send or phone calls you make, is a much better way to practice law.

And, as all value is subjective, it is your client’s perception of value that is paramount. If your client perceives they have received value, then they have.

Equally, the reverse is true. If your client does not understand the value you have provided to them, whose fault is that?


“The future is already here-it is just unevenly distributed” William Gibson

If you won’t take my word for it, take the word of the increasing number of firms that have made or are making the transition to becoming a Firm of the Future. Many of them are now very public about their move and are reaping the rewards and competitive advantages that come to any early adopters. They say the advantages to their clients include greater price certainty and piece of mind, improved relationships and communication, and sharing of risk. The firms themselves all say their culture, especially in terms of supporting teamwork and collaboration, has improved, there is less hoarding of work by individuals, and they have happier, more creative and productive teams of knowledge workers released from the shackles of timesheets. Increased profitability is also cited as a benefit, as is the fact that clients who agree their fees upfront pay quicker.

The choice is yours and all I ask is that you use your enquiring legal minds and look at what moving to a timesheet-less practice can do for you, your practice and your clients, rather than coming up with all the reasons why the status quo should be preserved. There is plenty of information out there in the form of books, articles, online publications and forums for anyone seriously interested in making the change to a better way of practising.

Being a Firm of the Future is not just about moving away from time-based billing. Discovering your firm’s purpose; fostering a culture of innovation; better and more focused client selection; better project management; using leading indicators predictive of performance (instead of lagging retrospective metrics like KPIs); and eradication of annual performance appraisals, all go hand in hand with a timeless environment. All of this will be more attractive to our attorneys of the future.

Clients too now have an increasing array of choices, so next time a client comes to you and asks you, “How much is this going to cost me?” and you cannot answer them, do not be surprised if they go to an attorney who can.


John Chisholm B.Juris LLB.



Legal Innovation: Who are the normal ones?



As if 2018 has not been busy enough for law firms in Australasia already?

What with law firms completing yet more of the seemingly dozens of legal industry surveys that come across an MP's desk*, February and March have seen, and will see, a plethora of excellent legal events and conferences.
I know I will miss mentioning many but these include the Chilli IQ Managing Partners Forum, ALTA demo days, Centre For Legal Innovation Digital Legal Practice & Innovation Masterclass & CLI's Legalpreneurs Roundtables, InPlace Solutions "Taking IT to the Cloud 2018" events, Law Fest-Innovation & Technology in Law, La Trobe University New Law:New Lawyers Symposium, ALPMA Pricing Masterclasses.
And these are all in addition to both the 100's of technical sessions and events all available to lawyers prior to CPD season finishing end of March and in between reading thought provoking articles from legal commentators and observers all over the world! (HINT: if you want an easy way of catching up on some of the best legal industry articles subscribe to Richard Smith's Weekly Digest)

I have been fortunate to be part of a couple of these events to date and will be involved in a couple more. For a veteran recovering lawyer like me it is- all at the same timeencouraging, exciting, scary, mindblowing, complex, and threatening to see both the array of innovative technology offerings out there and what some individuals and firms are doing not only with the use of technology but with adopting different mindsets and business models to the Oldlaw model (leveraging people x time x hourly rate).
I was particularly fortunate at the recent CLI Digital Legal Practice & Innovation Masterclass referred to above to co present and hear some great personal stories and presentations by wonderfully courageous and innovative professionals such as Melissa Lyon from Hive Legal, and Jannelle Kerrisk and Sarah Roach from Helix Legal, among several others at that Masterclass.

As I mentioned at the Masterclass they, and an increasing number of other legal providers who have shunned the Oldlaw business model, might feel-and be made to feel-like they are the outliers, the abnormal, the crazy ones when it comes to the legal profession. In reality they are the ones that are normal and behave more like business owners and entrepreneurs do in "the real world". They are the ones much more aligned with their clients ways of thinking and operating.
They are the ones for instance that genuinely have embedded a culture of :
understanding the importance of not trying to be all things to all people, utilizing technology where appropriate for the benefit of their customers, when you don't care who wins, how genuine collaboration benefits professionals and their customers lowering their costs to serve without compromising quality, understanding its their customers perception of value that matters, having value conversations with each customer before they commence any work, agreeing on scope of work, offering options, and then agreeing price(s) and terms of payment up front with their clients using the right people for the right tasks, and project manage both the matter and the customer relationship.

It is, regrettably, many professionals in Oldlaw that are abnormal and have over the last decades distanced themselves from the real world of business economics, acumen and customer focus.
Similar to the CLI Masterclass- and from the great reports of the ALTA demos-there were some really amazing products and offerings being showcased at the InPlace Solutions event (all Cloud based of course).
I was privileged to be asked to do a short key note welcome at the InPlace Solutions event and be part of their "innovation" panel where some great discussion ensured.
For someone who- as Patrick Ng will be the first to attest- has not had access to a help desk for over a decade now and who is technologically challenged (even though my wife says I spend much more time with my Apple family than my real family)- I found the products, the offerings, the conversations and in particular the stories of firms journeys into the Cloud with all their challenges and opportunities, fascinating. A credit to both the vendors and firms for what they have developed and implemented.

I could not help by reflect that if there are still IT Directors today in law firms (and those roles have not been outsourced or if the IT Director is not teenager on work experience) the role of technology in any self respecting law firm has changed profoundly.
It has very much transformed from a support function, morphed to an enabling function and in many firms has now developed into a lead function. Indeed advances in technology & the expectations of technology-real or imagined-has meant that in an increasing number of progressive firms, the technologists-the geeks-now hold “C” Suite positions.

Blasphemous I know to many lawyers but I suspect sooner than we think (and in some firms it is happening already) such geeks will be valued and remunerated more highly than many of the lawyers!!
Now and increasingly in the future in the most progressive and innovative firms technologists are expected to be real “fee earners”. Imagine- a world where "fee earners" don’t take days off sick, don’t have bad hair days, are on call 24/7 and don’t have to fudge their timesheets? I do.
I read firms websites and PR all the time and it is difficult to find a firm any more that is not “innovative”, “tech savvy”, "client focussed" and “different from our competitors”. But just because I can purchase technology from a vendor the same as my competitors can, does this makes me innovative or materially different from my competitors? I suspect not. After all if everyone is "innovative" no one is.
Unlike when I ran law firms many years ago perhaps the adoption of any sort of technology may have given us a slight competitive edge, and without in any way derogating what is on offer and what some firms have accomplished with technology, These days the adoption of technology per se is merely a table stake-it gives law firms an opportunity to continue to play in the game-but is no guarantee whatsoever of ongoing sustainable success.
What might be a guarantee of ongoing sustainable success?
One short answer to this maybe the way that you think about technology-a tech business model, mindset & culture if you like- not something just tacked onto Oldlaw. The way you implement certain technologies can, and are, giving some firms a real edge over their competitors-even those competitors that don’t look like you.

But if firms are just adopting technology for technology sake or just because your competition is, then at best you are missing out on enormous opportunities and at worst you run the risk of being exposed for what you still are. Applying lipstick to a pig…………….?
There seems to be some healthy- and unhealthy- scepticism out there about the real benefits of many law firms innovative technology and the recent report in the AFR of Beaton Consulting’s most recent client survey where it was reported that only 15% of 154 clients of law firms surveyed believed their external law firms were innovative. This engendered plenty of discussion at the InPlace event as I am sure it does elsewhere.
Are law firms innovating and not telling their clients? ( I doubt it, most firms are good at shouting from the rooftops their innovation).
Are firms doing what they think is innovative in the technology space and their clients don’t think it is innovative?
Or are the benefits of innovation not being passed onto their clients?
It’s not as though clients don’t want innovation according to the same Beaton Consulting Report- they are crying out for it just not enough are getting enough of it from the firms they are using it seems.

As the late Peter Drucker said;
"Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two--and only two--basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs.” (Sorry Oldlaw lawyers seems you are actually a cost centre not a profit centre)
Law firms ought find out pretty quickly whether they truly are innovating and/or whether they are spending resources on innovating the wrong things and/or whether such innovation is in the best interests of their clients.
After all if innovation is not benefitting your clients why bother period?
I am continually told by firms that technology makes them more efficient. It may well, especially given that the business model of most Oldlaw firms have enormous inbuilt inefficiencies. But I doubt most clients of law firms care whether their firms are efficient or not-they primarily care whether their firm is effective in solving whatever it is they came to the firm for. Perhaps that is the same for technology? Perhaps some clients don't want much in the way of innovative technology from their firm-perhaps all they want is better service (apropos the wonderful work Carl White is doing in this area), better access, or just the best lawyer or better value or.......? For some clients those changes will seem innovative enough.
The lesson here is all clients are not the same, don't expect the same & so don't want to be treated the same.The better firms don't assume.
Having said that, the most innovative professionals I have met are often the most curious. Curiosity leads to creativity. Creativity will usually lead you to genuine innovation that benefits all.
Curiosity will not kill the cat- but lack of it might.

* Personally staggering to me that many firms seem to have absolutely no problem in sharing their financial data, their hourly rack rates, realised & utilization rates, their budgeting, the salaries of their employees, etc with their competitors and yet most don't share that info with their own teams? I am assuming this with the goal so they won't look any different to their competitors?